BC is not familiar with the arcane canine community, so we assumed this issue was a fairly innocuous bit of discussion about protocol - akin to arguing the toss over whether one can serve red wine with fish - but it turned out to be incendiary stuff, causing one of the most heated arguments in recent BC history.

This week, the importance of getting this issue right has been highlighted by the sad case of a dog killed on Ladywell Fields, reported on the Facebook group "Pets of Telegraph Hill." Michelle writes:

My friend's dog has just been killed by a staff off its lead in Hilly Fields. My friend's dog was an 11year old super friendly and placid Jack Russell and her boyfriend has seriously injured hands from trying to save him - he's currently in Lewisham hospital. The young lad of about 20 with the staff ran off: the police are involved but please be careful.UPDATE: Following some dispute of the facts in the original report, we have double-checked with the group and confirmed that the incident took place in Ladywell Fields, rather than Hilly Fields and that the attack was by a staff, rather than a pit bull, as was originally reported. These details have now been updated.

However, two members of the Pets of Telegraph Hill group have now confirmed the other elements of the story are true - and the issue just as important. Odile writes:

On hearing about this I contacted Rio's owner last week. They just live up the road from me. She confirmed that the attack and the death of Rio is saddly correct and that they are devasted as well as traumatised. However, she said it happened in Ladywell Fields, not Hilly Fields.

Then put me down. And all the people who do wonderful work at dog centres such as Battersea. Such a narrow reactionary and simplistic view. You should focus your energy on owners who treat dogs (any type) in a manner that leads to aggression.

Is there any point to owning a pit bull? I have never read a story about the family poodle killing a child etc. just pit bulls. They seem to be owned by chavs as some sort of status symbol. I assume when the police catch the owner the dog will be destroyed as a matter of course?

Firstly, you have to understand that there really isn't such thing as a pit bull, they are generally a mixture of many breeds of dog that show certain characteristics, a pit-bull type dog. This is why you see pit-bull type dogs out and about despite the breed supposedly being on a banned list. So we're refereeing to a wide range of mixed breed dogs that fit into a roughly defined box.

How many pit bulls do Battersea re-home? Well just go onto their website and any dog that is classed as 'staff mix' is what many people would call a pitbull. The dog that attached this poor man and dog would probably fit very well into Battersea's description. Battersea however put-down many hundreds if not thousands of such dogs each year if they are assessed and deemed dangerous.

Now any responsible person who knowingly owns any dog that could be dangerous would muzzle it and keep it on a lead at all times. All dog owners, trust me, know very well whether their dog is a danger to others.

Then you have to ask why pit-bull type dogs are deemed aggressive? Well that's probably because they are incredibly loyal and will put up with sh*t from their owner that most other dogs would not. Therefore in the wrong hands, being abused, not socialised, you end up with potentially a very dangerous dog.

Not really narrow and simplistic? I think any amount of lateral thinking would prove it to be.

Let's hope that the perpetrator is identified and dealt with appropriately.

As Danny pointed out the problem is not the dog but the nature of the dog exploited by the humans who train/abuse it in a certain way.

Keep in mind that the idea of pit bull-type dogs as dangerous is not universal: the people who now have pit bulls used to be have doberman/rottweiler types, then German Shepherds. You don't gain any more by banning a type of dog than you do by banning knives; many dogs can be trained to attack if that's what the owner wants / if the owner doesn't know any better.

Also sorry to hear about a dog being killed at Hilly Fields. It is a shame but we live in hope that people will walk their dogs on a lead if there is any sign of them being aggressive. It often isn't easy to judge an aggressive dog as I experienced when walking a friend's Jack Russell at Hilly Fields. The Jack Russell wasn't on a lead and being young and friendly, went up to say hello to a large Golden Labrador dog. I thought he would be fine but the Labrador was very vicious and went to attack my friend's dog. I had to quickly pick it up before the Labrador bit it. I was also taken aback when the Labrador's owners, who were standing near their dog chatting to some other people, did absolutely nothing and seemed completely oblivious to the fact that their dog almost attacked mine. Please be careful.

Yes, humans BRED a dog to be the ultimate canine killer. Then decided that BREEDING doesn't matter for this ONE breed of dog.

Pit bulls are the number ONE breed for human fatalities andsevere, life altering injuries (fatalpitbullattacks.com), serial attacks,rampage attacks, and failing a 'second chance' (dogbitelaw.com) as well asmauling and killing pets and livestock (17barks.blogspot.com). This is no morean appropriate and safe pet than a tiger or bear and should be regulated thesame way.

I agree although to some extent it's true to say that some dog breeds show certain traits... Some have been bred over generations to have a strong prey/hunting drive like hunting hounds, others have a strong instinct to chased small animals like terriers which were often bred to chase rabbits or rats and there are others which have been bred for many years for their aggression for use as guard dogs... Having said that the way a specific dog is trained and looked after also has a huge impact.

That's ridiculous. People who love their dogs let them have a run once a day. Both dogs here were off leads. The issue is the breed of dog. I doubt even if the owner was responsible, it would have been hard to get the dog to stop once it had attacked.

Anyone else feel like Brockley Central is posting negative things about dogs for his own means, more blog views for example? Compare how much user interaction this blog was getting before the post and now... Does he even have a dog? Would be nice to see something positive on here as this is, supposedly, a non biased blog which caters for all...

I am afraid I believe you will be the only one Anon. As the blog banner clearly states "The online home for ALL things Brockley (se4), Deptford, Ladywell, Lewisham and New Cross".The topic is relevant and touches many people in the community, he does not really matter whether Brockley Nick has a dog or not; the community needs to be aware of these things and this blog creates a great chance to discuss the matter and perhaps change people's mindset for the better. What happened is terrible and should be addressed.I really feel for the owner and wish the best of recoveries to the boyfriend.

I can see what Anon is saying though. Whilst you haven't overtly posted overtly negative views on dog owners, you have all of a sudden posted 2 articles which show dogs and dog ownership in a negative light.

The first article was simply some random bloke's unverified opinion and the second is about something which also isn't exactly positive. Of course you can argue that the community needs to know about these things but this is 2 articles about dogs in a matter of weeks, both with a negative slant, where there has previously been no word about dogs or dog owners.

The Evening Standard used to publish blatantly negative articles about cycling - literally saying that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, getting under the wheels of motorists who "pay for the roads" and opinionated articles from guest columnists who said their grannies were constantly being run down by cyclists jumping red lights. Under pressure they have changed this stance but most of the articles they publish continue to put cycling in a negative light - they're usually about cyclists being crushed under the wheels of HGVs or getting into fights with other road users. They constantly highlight the dangers of cycling when statistics show that more pedestrians get hit by cars than cyclists. They could argue that this is news and relevant to London but there's never anything positive...

I don't know about you, but as a pedestrian (and part time leisure cyclist) I witness more cyclists jumping red lights than cars. Just this morning a cyclist almost hit me as I tried to cross the crossing outside Brockley Barge.

Perhaps but how many motorists do you see speeding? Talking on their phones whilst driving? Parked illegally and dangerously? If I had to choose between 2 evils I would prefer to see cyclists jumping reds than motorists speeding - being hit by a 60 or 70kg cyclist rather than a 2 tonne lump of metal and glass travelling over the limit I choose the former...

Having said that, I do see motorists jump reds most days... Usually just after the lights have changed so it is less obvious than when cyclists do it!

I spent my youth growing up in Hilly Fields and now watch my children doing the same and this horrendous episode is frightening beyond words. It starkly underlines the unfortunate truth that across the country there are more and more people using dogs as weapons instead of companions. Rather than risk being caught by the police with a knife so many young ruffnecks are turning to dog ownership as a symbol of both protection and aggression. It's a serious problem and needs to be tackled with much stricter dog ownership control.My thoughts go out to the local resident who lost his dog and I sincerely hope he recovers both physically and mentally from this wretched and avoidable ordeal.

Not necessarily so, a cyclist ran a red light when all cars had stopped as I crossed at a crossing with my children. He just missed my 6 year old. If he'd hit her she would have been very badly injured as he was cycling fast (going downhill). He was actually quite shaken himself and kept apologising for being an idiot (his words).

Fair enough, there are all sorts of exceptions but as a rule if you cycle through a red light you put yourself in danger. I know a guy who cycled into a pedestrian that run into the road straight in front of him despite having the red light, there were no cars in sight and didn't notice the cyclist, and since he was cycling fast ended up in hospital with serious injuries.

But in a car vs. bike impact we know who's more vulnerable. I am terrified by cars giving me a shave. The other day I was cycling on the cycling lane in Peckam and a car overtook on the left invading my lane and almost touching me at high speed. A couple of months ago a lorry closed me on the left nearly forcing me to crash on the kerb in Greenwich. People focus on green lights when there are many very dangerous drivers out there.

I'm not convinced this is 100% true. My partner and i walk our mini schnauzer at hillyfields every day, we know quite a few dog walkers and no-one knows anything about it. When this went viral it was the hottest day of the year and the park was packed, (I was there a hour before this was supposedly reported). There has been no posters put up on hillyfields either. If it is true I'm sorry to hear it and hope a speedy recovery to the injured owner, but something just doesn't add up.

I don't think there's any way to put a positive spin on a dog mauling incident. That's not what anyone is saying. It's the fact that in a matter of weeks you chose to highlight 2 negative stories pertaining to dog ownership. The 1st was an unverified story from some random guy who wrote to you, the second is clearly factual but again negative. You work in PR - you know that it's not always how you spin it but what you report that counts. Clearly it's up to you what you write about on your blog - you have never issued a guarantee of impartiality but all I'm saying is that you can't blame people for wondering why all of a sudden these 2 negative dog stories have come to light....

As Max says below, of course if a cyclist hits a pedestrian at speed then the pedestrian may well be injured but in general cyclists will suffer injury for their errors, even when they hit pedestrians. I know from experience as I have hit a couple of pedestrians who have simply walked out in front of me without looking (many pedestrians step out into the road if they can't hear traffic - they don't look).

Is there any way of finding out a description of the dog? Or does anyone have any more information about what the owner looked like? Time of day?We walk our dogs in hilly fields every day and this is incredibly worrying.

1. The first wasn't an "unverified story" - it was an opinion piece, describing behaviour I have seen first hand. It wasn't even a negative story - it was one type of dog owner talking about another type of dog owner.

2. The second story was news (if true, although it sounds as though some of the details are wrong and may need updating), which needs reporting.

If I had an anti-dog agenda, I'd happily say so. But I am not a dog owner and therefore don't care about dog-walking. I do not have a dog in this fight, literally. It amazes and disappoints me how prickly some dog owners are being about this.

People get defensive when they perceive their bubble being burst... I mentioned cyclists being "victimised" by the ES. A while back it was mothers with pushchairs on this blog who lashed out at people apparently saying they shouldn't be in cafes or whatever it was.... Hardly appalling just human nature....

That's just silly. When Nick chose to run the opinion piece clearly he didn't know that only a week or so later a dog would get killed. This is local news that needs to be reported. Why would he not to report it just because he happened to have already posted something else about dogs?

Unfortunately, most essential information is missing from the posted item, e.g. time, date and location in the park. We don't know what one has to be careful of since there is no description of either the 'lad' or dog. For those not familiar with the applicable regs, it is worth looking at the government website: https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs that makes it clear that if it was a Pit Bull Terrier, being off the leash would have been just one of the breaches of the law.If anyone has some or all of the missing information (assuming that the post is actually genuine) please tell us!

One recent report recently received was "The little terrier that people may know, 'Rio', is apparently ok, and hasn't been attacked." This conflict of information suggests that it would be better for everyone not to draw any conclusions until there is confirmation from the police that an actual attack was officially reported (as we were initially led to believe), that there is no mix-up between unrelated incidents and key information stated is accurate.

I've asked the police about this incident and there is no record of any such incident. There was a much less serious incident in Ladywell Fields. There has been no reported dog deaths and nobody in hospital.

The Friends of Hilly Fields has looked into it and can find no evidence it happened.

Please behave responsibly and if you cannot verify something, don't run clickbait just to generate comments.

Yes but surely there are other things to report about dogs. Why in a matter of weeks do we get 2 unverified, negative accounts of dogs and dog owners? It looks like the second one (above) didn;t even happen! And the first is some guys opinion which seems (according top the comments) to be in direct conflict with other people's opinions.... I can certainly see why people are accusing Nick of posting "click bait"

Thanks Chris. The article has been updated. As you say, the attack took place in Ladywell Fields. But the dog is dead and I hope we can all agree that whichever local park this incident took place in, it's important that people are aware of the issue.

Headhunter, please make up your mind - are you accusing me of bias and sensationalism or not? I don't care either way, but the "I can see why some people might say" line of argument is craven. Speak your mind.

As for "why aren't you writing nice stories about dogs" argument, presumably you would like us to update the famous quote as follows:

""When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news. BUT if a dog bites and kills another dog, look the other way and find something nice to say about dogs."

"But the dog is dead"..............are you sure he's not just resting?. part of a dastardly plot of obfuscation and inaccuracy aimed at riling the mild mannered and entirely reasonable Hilly Fields dog walking massive?

Dog owners deserve a bad name for their genuine actions, not for exaggerated ones based on ill-informed social media comment.

I hate most dog owners, writing the original Hilly Fields dog owner page that was watered down on the new website after complaints (the original blog is still available - https://hilly.wordpress.com/dogs/).

My opinion has not changed much since I became a dog owner.

But dog owners use the parks all year round, in rain, in cold, in the dark. And then, suddenly, they have the parks full up in summer with families having picnics, leaving food at dog level.

The true story was horribly enough: A Jack Russell, like my own, attacked in Ladywell Fields, taken the vet's still alive, not killed by the other dog. The behaviour of the attacking dog and it's owner was terrible and my sympathy goes with those who lost Rio.

But running incorrect, exaggerated stories without checking remains unacceptable. If you take the view of publish and be damned, you'll be damned.

The location was misreported and is now-fixed. The substance of the matter has not changed.

It's interesting: This article is nothing more than a report of an incident mentioned on a forum of local dog-walkers. That group took the view that this was a tragic story that the public needed to be aware of. They are dog-walkers and the saw nothing "anti-dog" about running a story designed to help other dog-walkers. You, on the other hand, take this simple bit of public information as a personal slight.

If the terrier died,then it was in effect killed by the other dog wasn't it?Don't see where the exaggertion comes in to it.Of course the breed of the attacking dog was misreported. Not sure where that gets us exactly. Staffies and pitbulls are fighting and status dogs.You have claimed that the incident in Ladywell fields was of a less serious nature than that wrongly attributed to the attack in Hilly Fields.That is incorrect isn't it, as the terrier appears to have been killed.

We now understand that some of the limited key information given was wrong (location & attacking dog type) and caused significant consternation at Hilly Fields.

Much remains unclarified: e.g. the "Michelle Omoboni" Facebook post on 14 April 19:37 included "....and her boyfriend has seriously injured hands from trying to save [her dog]...." whilst soon afterwards at 21:04 "Lizbeth Varieswildly" stated a different person: "The owner is currently in hospital....". Also a week later we are unfortunately left with little chance of identifying the perpetrator in charge and the dog as still no useful description has been given - in spite of the overt purpose of the posting appearing to serve as a warning.

However, it should be noted that Brockley Central does not appear to be an investigative news agency and from a practical point of view, it is far better to have a warning about a serious incident sooner than later. Such reports do in fact need to be taken at face value, albeit with caution until the facts have been established. Don't shoot the messenger.

It might have been in Ladywell Fields, but the perpetrator will likely avoid it for the time being and now can be anticipated to turn up anywhere else.

Having a dog on a leash is certainly not a failsafe means of preventing attacks as carers have been known to lose their grip, dogs slip their collar or attack whilst leashed but within reach. This incident also does not support the contention that the vast majority of responsible dog carers and their dogs should be effectively punished for the actions of the small anti-social or sociopathic minority by compulsory leashing. Rather, the extent of the minority problem should be recognized and a more effective policy to handle it formulated - but that is another story.

Posts like this really wind me up. Stop burying your head in the sand.

If your dogs are uncontrollable, then have them on the lead. Yes, the majority of dog owners are decent responsible owners, but the same goes for car owners and cyclists. Yet we still have to deal with irresponsible car drivers and cyclists. So why not unruly dog owners as well?

OK, for the record, I do believe that you somehow have an agenda and that's why you have posted these 2 unverified stories/"opinion pieces" in a very short time. I don't get the impression that you like dogs much. So yes, bias but as I said, it's your blog, you can publish what you like.... I'm just saying that you shouldn't be "appalled" or surprised when people get a bit upset.

To be clear: The first was an opinion piece, which I ran, because someone suggested it. The second was news, which happened and which readers alerted me to. If you think I have been trawling pet-owners' pages on Facebook to look for stories that would somehow show dog-owners in a bad light to advance my own world view, you have a screw loose.

Guest, I felt that my post was already a bit too long (fewer people appear to read lengthy posts) so did not overly expand. However, it is useful to have your feedback over something that is not as clear as aimed.

My last sentence was intended to highlight that we do not currently have adequate recognition of the multi-faceted problems with the anti-social/sociopathic minority in charge of dogs and (hence) cannot have, yet must need a more effective means of identifying and dealing with them. That murder is a minority problem - does not imply that it should not be tackled with the greatest severity.

Rather than getting sand in the ears (a common human condition it is true) you may be assured that these problems have been in the process of being worked on. It is a somewhat difficult topic because many become quite understandably emotive - but we nevertheless must eventually persuade those in authority to actively protect the vulnerable (that is most of us, including dogs).

Please do not forget that those in authority, from enforcement, through to legal process, restraint and punishment also cannot do their best in the current atmosphere of constant cuts which is likely to continue whoever wins the next election.

I think the dog licence should be reintroduced and proceeds ringfenced to fund an inspectorate, dedicated to removing unlicensed dogs from their keepers. If the incidence of dog attack wasn't eliminated as a result then other measures could be added.

Pound puppy, the quoted Facebook members illustrate the problems with anecdotal/passed on information and do not appear to be reliable and accurate reporters (but not everyone has a forensic approach. I already cannot cope with emails and some blogs because of the volume, so don't do Facebook/Twitter - but surmise that Rio's family are not directly contactable (always go to the source). At the moment, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get information from enforcement/SNT/police as the incident must have been properly logged somewhere (if not, it is of the utmost urgency to be done before details blur).

The dog licence is pointless, it ends up being a tax on responsible dog owners, irresponsible owners simply don't pay and of course payment is never enforced - who's going to fund the enforcement of dog licence payment? The police are already over stretched and under funded...

But what's the point in that? So some little old lady with alzheimers on a tiny pension forgets or can't afford to pay the licence on her little Yorkie Terrier - the pride of her life in her declining years - and is caught by this dog Spanish inquisition that you and NAT are proposing. Her dog is "taken away and shot".

Meanwhile "lad with pit bull" is able to evade the inquisition and his dog mauls Mrs Johnson's poodle in the park....

A dog licence fee in itself does nothing to guarantee the safety of anyone or any dog from aggressive and badly trained pooches...

Mr Jones, I am appreciative of any chance of winning something - but somewhat unsure if you are aware that "bingo" used to be a slang term for brandy - although uncertain if literary usage can be found post WWI. Should this apply however - I would be more than happy to collect my bottle!

Seriously though, amenity groups by their nature cannot be political, particularly as they have to work with whomsoever is at the helm. The events that led to the cuts and the cuts themselves have been under the aegis of differing parties in the political spectrum which is why "whoever wins the next election" was appended. Moreover, no analysis was offered as to the necessity for cuts (pro/anti) being as a park Friend, excusing the pun, well out of my field.

That the cuts exist and have significant and diverse impact is a simple statement of fact, but appears to require periodic underlining. No politics involved, honest.

I'm giving my inspectors, some discretion in targetting animals that are mistreated or may be a danger to the public or other dogs, as well as being unlicensed.(along with other human like powers) The lack of a licence would only be the 'foot in the door', and you needn't worry too much about the Yorkie for now.

Seriously. My great sympathy for the owners of the attacked dog, and any search for overall solutions to this problem might wait a bit.

Two ways: Firstly it would fund a larger and better staffed operation, and secondly, the licence would indicate, (though not conclusively) responsible dog owner, and the absence of a licence would indicate, (though not conclusively) the opposite, and that, in my opinion, would be a start.

Essentially a dog licence would be a tax on responsible dog owner with no relation to ability to pay. It's been tried before and scrapped. Why? What makes you think it would be effective this time round?

How much do you think it would cost to enforce payment and then provide some kind of excess to create some kind of meaningful new "dog police force" with all the associated organisation and admin costs? It would have to be a pretty hefty amount and would immediately criminalise dog owners on low incomes who are simply unable to afford the new tax and don't pay.

And for what? As you point out yourself, payment of tax in no way indicates whether an owner is responsible or not. Just as payment of VED/road tax in now way guarantees that a motorist is not going to drink drive or speed.

So we have a new tax (or licence fee if you prefer) which will cost money to enforce and to administer and would then need to provide sufficient excess to fund some kind of dog patrols beyond what the police and RSPCA already carry out. What makes you think this is an effective use of money and resources simply to provide inconclusive proof of responsibility in dog owners?

We are coming to this situation because safeguards appear to have failed. Now you might post your idea of some improvement, shut up, or walk around with your fingers in your ears humming laalaa. Your call.

Are we coming to a "situation"? Have things really got worse or at least bad enough to require the imposition of a special tax and the establishment of dedicated police force? Or are you responding to media hype and the Fleet Street spotlight turning to the subject of aggressive dogs....

OK, so we have a situation but is the imposition of a dog licence/tax going to change that? As outlined above, many people simply won't pay and as you yourself admitted, non payment by the owner is likely to have very little bearing on whether the dog is dangerous or not. In fact as I have said, I would argue that the average (dangerous) pit bull owner is much less likely to pay than the average (well behaved) black Lab owner. If this really is a problem that society feels needs a solution then I think we need to think of a better one than a blanket tax which people will simply evade...

So you also want dogs to wear some kind of registration plate? This gets wackier and wackier! So let's say that dogs do wear these licence plates - is that going to guarantee no more dog attacks and safety on the street? As I've already pointed out, cars have licence plates and tax discs but motorists still kill and injure around 4000 people the UK roads every year....